The Persistence Of The Hedging Strategy Of U.S. Allies

After the Cold War,most of America’s allies adopted a hedging strategy between China and the United States.Existing literature suggests that a necessary condition for the persistence of the hedging strategy is the absence of comprehensive great power competition;otherwise,the hedging strategy of small countries may be difficult to maintain.However,in the current context of intensifying competition between China and the United States,some of America’s allies still maintain the hedging strategy.The central puzzle of this paper is: why are the hedging strategies of some American allies able to persist,while others are abruptly terminated against the backdrop of escalating competition between China and the United States? What factors determine the persistence of America’s allies’ hedging strategies? Based on data from 21 American allies,this paper conducts an empirical analysis of the factors that influence the persistence of America’s allies’ hedging strategies using crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis(cs QCA)method.The results show that there are three paths or combinations of conditions.The first path requires both "low economic dependence on China" and "low perception of threat from China".The possible mechanism of this path is that low economic dependence on China means that there is ample room for economic and trade cooperation with China,while low perception of threat from China leads to a lack of motivation to shift from hedging to balancing against China,thus enabling America’s allies to continue their hedging strategies.For Spain,its low economic dependence on China and low perception of threat from China allow its hedging strategy to continue.The second path requires both "low credibility of US alliance commitments" and "low perception of threat from China".The possible mechanism of this path is that although the low credibility of US alliance commitments may have a negative impact on its relationship with the United States,it is not sufficient to make it shift from hedging to bandwagoning with China or balancing against the United States.Meanwhile,the low perception of threat from China also leads to a lack of motivation to shift from hedging to balancing against China.Therefore,America’s allies can continue their hedging strategies.For Argentina,its low credibility of US alliance commitments and low perception of threat from China allow its hedging strategy to continue.The third path requires three conditions: "stable ruling position of decision-makers in US allies","low credibility of US alliance commitments" and "high economic dependence on China".The possible mechanism of this path is that US allies with stable ruling positions of decision-makers have greater diplomatic decision-making autonomy,and their high economic dependence on China can promote active maintenance of friendly relations with China.Although the low credibility of US alliance commitments may have a negative impact on its relationship with the United States,it is not sufficient to make it shift from hedging to bandwagoning with China or balancing against the United States.Therefore,America’s allies can continue their hedging strategies.For the Philippines,its stable ruling position of decision-makers,low credibility of US alliance commitments,and high economic dependence on China allow its hedging strategy to continue.The above findings not only enrich the existing hedging theory and establish a connection between hedging theory and alliance theory,but also help predict the strategic choices and diplomatic behavior of US allies,clarify the external environment facing China’s rise,and provide important practical reference for China to formulate and implement effective foreign policies to respond to US alliance offensives.